Figure 1 containing the mean-median quantity of oil collected by students

in my fifth hour class using the absorbing and skimming methods.

[Note that the standard error bars for the two means do not overlap.]

The students in all but my 6th hour class found that their graphs of mean-medians with standard error bars showed a statistically significant difference in the amount of oil they were able to collect using the two different methods of collection—absorbing and skimming. In all cases, they were able to collect more of the oil off of the water using the skimming method than the absorbing method [see the graph above (Figure 1, above) for my 5th hour class's data].

Below is the graph for Figure 1 for my 6th Hour students. As

you can see, the error bars on the mean amount of oil

collected for the two methods overlap. This indicates that the

apparent difference in the means can be explained by error

in the study and therefore, statistically speaking, there was

no difference between the mean amount of oil collected

for the two methods.

Figure 1 containing the mean-median quantity of oil collected by students

in my sixth hour class using the absorbing and skimming methods.

[Note that the standard error bars for the two means overlap.]

The pictures that the students took after collection of the oil

following the simulated spill, agreed with their quantitative

data analysis. They could see clearly that the water that

had been skimmed to remove oil was much clearer than the

water that had been cleaned with the absorbing method

(see Table 2 below).

Table 2 for one group of students containing the photographs before the oil

spill and after clean up efforts using skimming (left) and absorbing (right).

But why were the data for the 6th hour class different than

those obtained by the other six classes? By looking at the class

data tables (Table 3, see directly below) containing the data from

each group, my students could identify the reason that the mean-medians for the 2 collection methods for the 6th hour class

overlapped when error was considered. One group, Group 2,

had collected a large amount of oil when using the absorbing

method compared to using the skimming method. This added to

the error or variability and resulted in the overlap between the

means when error was considered.

The Table 3 data from all seven of my classes. Note that when the

standard error (SEM) was taken into account, the skimming method

resulted in significantly higher amounts of oil being collected by

my students for all but my 6th hour class.

Washing the glassware to remove the oil at the completion of the study.

As part of their inquiry experience, my students were

expected to exhibit the behaviors of responsible scientists

for safety and laboratory maintenance. After the investigation

was completed, the students pitched in to clean up laboratory

benches, desks, and all equipment and tools used.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Now that all the data had been recorded and analyzed, it

was time to discuss the results and make some conclusions.

All but one class had the same outcome: skimming appeared to

be the more effective method in removing the oil.

Their hypothesis was, "If an oil spill is simulated and we

compare the methods of skimming and absorbing to

clean up the oil, then we will find that absorbing is a

more effective method because absorbing soaks up the

oil and this is the most common method used in the

history of oil spill clean-ups.”

Because their findings showed that more oil was collected

and the water appeared clearer following skimming, they

decided that the data did not support their hypothesis.

Their successful completion of their research investigation

had enabled them to answer their research question,

"When cleaning up an oil spill, which method, skimming

or absorbing, is most effective for removing the oil?"

Skimming was the most effective means for cleaning up

the oil from the water in their simulated oil spills.

Some of the students were really surprised at the results

of their investigation—they truly believed that absorbing

would collect more oil. But that wasn’t the case in their

research investigation.

One of the possible reasons they discussed for their findings

that did not support their hypothesis was that the absorption method for collecting the oil resulted in too much water being

collected along with the oil. As was mentioned earlier in the background information section, the structure of natural

Close-up of oil collected from skimming method.

As you can see from the picture there was quite a bit of water

that was collected with the oil. The water and oil separated

from each other leaving the oil sitting on top of the water.

cotton makes it hydrophobic (repels water) and oleophilic

(attracts oil). However, we used processed cotton balls in

our investigation and these structural characteristics found

in natural cotton have likely been altered.

Another possibility they discussed was that that since the oil

floated on the surface of the water, it may have been easier to

collect using the skimming method.

The students were also able to see how sample size and

differences in data among the samples can impact whether

or not a scientist will find a difference in the data collected

in an investigation. One out of 5 medians was relatively high

for the absorbing data for the 6th hour class and the mean

and error were influenced by this data point.

This discussion also easily leads to a review of when to apply

the mean and median as the measurement of the center of a

group of data. The mean-median data typically provide the

smoothest data in science. However, the class mean-median

for a small sample size (5 groups) can still be impacted by an

outlier as was seen for the 6th hour class.

My students discussed what they had learned about how

difficult it was to collect oil from water, especially after it

was mixed together with the simulated waves and currents

produced from the air pump. They had learned about and

were able to discuss and debate in a responsible and

knowledgeable way the different technologies and methods

available for collecting and eliminating oil from the

environment. It was easy for this discussion to relate

directly to what they had learned about the Exxon Valdez

and Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spills and how difficult it is

to clean up the environment following these calamities.

In addition to the process of using scientific inquiry as an

investigation tool, student discussion and conclusions about

their data also included content they had learned previously

in my class and through this inquiry about ecology, man's

impact on the environment, and environmental stewardship.

The students also discussed improvements they would make to

their procedures. In their procedure, the students collected their

data following only about 10 minutes after they had placed the

oil (mixed with water) in the beaker. While they conducted their investigation, a number of students had observed that the oil

continued to separate out over time. Thus, not all of the oil

collected was being included in the data and the period of

wait-time before measuring the amount of oil was very important

or the accuracy of the study! The students decided that they

needed to allow the beaker of collected oil to sit for 24 hours

before measuring the amount of oil in the beaker. The reason

for this is the oil needs some time to separate from the water.

While collecting oil, there will always be some amount of water

collected with it; to ensure a more accurate measurement,

the collected oil needs to sit for longer than about ten

minutes, which is the amount of time that my students had.

Also, coloring the water blue with food coloring to try and

resemble the ocean produces a blue tint and made it hard to

decipher where the water and oil are exactly separated from

each other in the beaker. Just plain clear water works the best.

THE NEXT STEP

After my students had fully completed the investigation with their discussions and conclusions, they planned what they would do next. The following were the different possibilities that arose.

Replication of the study with improvements:

Improving the methods by using natural cotton in place of the processed cotton balls.

Improving the procedure by increasing the amount of time to let the oil and water separate before measuring the amount of oil collected.

Reduce the influence of error by increasing the sample size by having more groups of students within each class, or by pulling the data from all of the groups in all of the classes and then analyzing it.

Conduct a further investigation:

Compare natural to processed cotton to see whether natural, unprocessed cotton will work better than the cotton balls to absorb oil.

Gather more background information: about the causes of

oil spills, the environmental damage they can cause, and

clean-up and prevention methods.

An oil pipeline (Sudan Tribune-Kenya).

NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS ADDRESSED

Science
as InquiryCONTENT STANDARD A:As a result of activities in grades 5-8,
all students should develop

Abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry

Understanding about scientific inquiry

Life Science CONTENT STANDARD C:As a result of activities in grades 5-8,all students should develop understanding of

Populations and ecosystems

Science and Technology CONTENT STANDARD E:As a result of activities in grades5-8, all students should develop

Abilities of technological design

Understanding about science and technology

Science in Personal and Social Perspectives CONTENT STANDARD F:As a result of activities in grades5-8, all students should develop understanding of

Populations, resources, and environments

Risks and benefits

Science and technology in society

NEW MEXICO CONTENT STANDARDS, BENCHMARKS, & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

SCIENCE Benchmarks Directly Addressed

Strand I

SCIENTIFIC THINKING AND PRACTICE

Standard I

Understand the processes of scientific investigations and use inquiry and scientific ways of observing, experimenting, predicting, and validating to think critically.

comparing the skimming and absorbing methods for cleaning oil off of the surface of

the water.

TEACHER
OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS

This RIP scientific inquiry was meant to help my students understand what oil spills do to the ecosystem and how hard it is to clean them up. Within this framework, I expected my students to achieve a number of benchmarks in science and mathematics shown in the national and state standards tables presented above. At the same time, I wanted to stimulate student interest in a topic that would make them want to know more about the science content involved in their inquiry.

From start to finish, this STEM research investigation took about

four weeks. Engaging in this RIP was a rigorous experience

for the students. However, the gains achieved were well

worth it.

It allowed them to see just how disturbing and detrimental oil

spills are, and helped them to understand that oil spills affect

the environment in many ways. It helped them to realize that

cleaning up an oil spill is not an easy process, but actually a

difficult and time-consuming process that involves many hours

and dedication of hard work. They also found out that when

oil does spill and contaminates water; it cannot be cleaned

up 100% and the aftereffects last for years.

The students developed a profound understanding of the

meaning of environmental stewardship and the impact of

humankind on both aquatic and terrestrial ecology. Completing

this STEM oil spill inquiry has helped open their eyes to what was happening in the Gulf of Mexico due to the oil that is leaking

from an underwater wellhead. They had come to realize that

the oil spill in the Gulf might become the worst oil spill that our nation has ever experienced. They recognized what the

oil is doing to the waters and the wildlife of those creatures inhabiting that environment. They are also aware of the great impact this disturbing oil spill will have on people’s livelihoods

all around the nation and maybe even around the world.

Two important outcomes from my implementing this STEM inquiry

into my curriculum were: students began "thinking out of the

box," and the concepts to which my students were exposed

came alive with meaning. The oil industry is and its consequences are found across environments. Every day in this area of our

state, we are exposed to reminders that oil fields and drilling

are not just in the ocean. This, along with the Gulf oil spill

media coverage, really highlighted the relevance of this

STEM scientific investigation.

Incorporation of the RIP education model into my classroom

has allowed my students to be engaged in their learning,

provided them with a thinking tool to be used to make

decisions, promoted cooperative learning experiences,

fostered in them the ability to think critically, encouraged

and resulted in creativity, and provided them with

opportunities to share their knowledge of concepts with others. All of these activities are incorporated in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as scientific and engineering practices.

How wonderful it is to see students questioning and actually researching to find an answer on their own!

The data collection, sharing, and analysis involved in this inquiry

was extensive. Most of this was done by my students in one

45 minute class period at my request. Because this proved

somewhat overwhelming for some of my students, I have

decided to extend the amount of time for them to do this

part in the future.

I feel like I am a more effective teacher of science as a result of participating in the RIP program training and using this type of

student-centered instruction. The RIP program has opened my

eyes to so many new things. By incorporating RIP into my

classroom I feel that my confidence level has risen in teaching,

and my knowledge of the concepts I teach has grown tremendously.

My success at using scientific inquiry to achieve these goals

was largely due to my application of the RIP to my teaching

and the ongoing support provided by ANOVA Science and my

colleague, Ricki Colomb, with whom I attended the RIP training.

ADDENDUM FROM ANOVA SCIENCE WEBMASTER

Oil spills are a tragedy whenever and wherever they occur because of their impact on our environment and its ecosystems. However, inquiry-based instruction in elementary and secondary education can capture valuable learning opportunities from such catastrophic events that result in positive outcomes. These have immediate impact on student learning and possible future impact on how these students understand and handle environmental stewardship. Equally important, seizing such opportunities to imbed STEM into the classroom learning experience may well lead to motivating students to pursue further education in STEM fields.

Students from this middle school level Featured RIP-Based Inquiry as well as from our previously Featured kindergarten RIP-Based Inquiry were motivated to action by the occurrence of and devastation caused by oil spills. They learned more about these events by applying the four STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields in their investigations. In this seventh grade RIP inquiry, students explored the impact of a simulated oil spill that they made occur in their model oceans with shorelines. They compared two methods (technologies) to determine which would work the best for trying to clean the oil off of the surface of the water. In the kindergarten RIP inquiry, the students compared various methods (technologies) for cleaning up a simulated oil spill and applied what they learned in their research investigation by designing and building their own model technology for cleaning up ocean oil spills. Students are not only learning about the use of models in describing scientific concepts, but also are using models to conduct their own investigations into concepts about the natural world.

The creativity that resulted from student interest in this topic is obvious, as is the fervor in which they tackled a project that involved a high level of rigor in the designing of the investigation, the conducting of the study, and the mathematics involved in the data analysis used to provide the evidence they needed to support their decisions about their hypotheses. And although the investigations were challenging and really made students apply their thinking, they still enjoyed them immensely. Anonymous assessments were given to Ms. Miller’s seventh grade students at the end of the year to determine their attitudes towards learning science through RIP scientific inquiry. At the end of the school year, 97% of Ms. Miller’s students wrote ONLY positive statements

describing their experiences in learning science that included “fun," "intriguing," "like learning about the earth," "more discoveries to make," "learn new things," and "lots of interesting things to learn.” Compared to 85% at the beginning of the year prior to their learning through scientific inquiry, 91% percent of her students said they would like to learn more science at the end of the year. The students supported their positive attitude towards learning science with reasons for them, such as “I like science because it causes thinking,’ “in science, we can learn how we can help our planet,” “science if cool,” “I would like to learn more because you can do some exciting things,” and “I would want to because it’s fun doing the Research Investigation Process.” It is obvious that Ms. Miller’s students are already achieving the National Science Education Standards (NSES) “Goal I: Experience the richness and excitement of knowing about and understanding the natural world.”

There is much current debate as to whether the ocean is purging itself and the BP oil spill disappearing largely on its own (through microbial feeding and evaporation), or whether the oil is just sitting non-detectably in large and small plumes below the surface of the Gulf’s water, both which may or may not lead to longterm, far reaching consequences on the Gulf’s ecosystems. Regardless of whether or not the oil in the Gulf of Mexico is dissipating or just not being detected, the more background information gathered and understood by the students through their research investigations, the more they are able to achieve “Goal III” of the NSES: “Engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about matters of scientific and technological concern.” Perhaps learning how prevalent oil mishaps are is important enough of a lesson and contribution to the likelihood that the future stewardship of these elementary and secondary students will make a major and lasting impact on the Earth and its ecosystems.

Clearly the students involved in this investigation were deeply involved in using the scientific and engineering practices described in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as they pursued the answer to their research question.

Note: Technically speaking, the PB oil spill may be best described as an oil "gusher." The oil was not "spilled" into the ocean from a holding source, but was shooting out of the earth naturally and entering the ocean directly from a pipe in a hole that had been drilled into the earth.